The Haze in Here: A Drug War Overview

[Baron Max]

he seems to think criminals are created because there are laws.

uh...well yeah i guess that is true.

...LOL! How true!

Remember, John, Hype is an idealist and is also one of sciforums most avid Monday-Morning Quarterbacks. Oh, yeah, and he can also see into the future, and he uses that to support his arguments on what to do NOW!

Pretty damned good, huh?

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

How do you know that it wouldn't have happened even without prohibition? Is that another of your abilities ...to see what might have been if....?

Demand for a good persists, even after dumb fucks like you decide that you know best. Every time a good or service gets outlawed, in every place in the world, black markets spring up to continue supplying those goods or services. It's a simple fact of reality. Your inability to recognize cause and effect is pathetic.

Oh wait, you're just trolling. Did you have anything substantial to say?

 

[hypewaders]

The intended effect of alcohol prohibition was not achieved: Popular demand for alcohol was not reduced in the long run.

Baron Max: "What percentage, Hype? How many people of the entire population do you consider "popular demand"?

If you would like to get into numbers, I'll be happy to assist in your research and education. Generally, through the course of the prohibition years the allure of alcohol, especially "hard" alcohol, showed an increase. It's a typical psychological response, when people resent having something taken from them without convincing justification.

John99: "he seems to think criminals are created because there are laws."

If overly-ambitious social engineers criminalize a common behavior, that is in effect what happens. I'll be happy to explore the arc of alcohol prohibition with you both, and compare it with the present era of marijuana prohibition.

Baron Max: "he can also see into the future, and he uses that to support his arguments on what to do NOW!"

I think that alcohol and marijuana prohibition share enough similarities, that the story of alcohol criminalization does allow us to anticipate where present trends are leading. I'm no expert on this subject, so if you two would sincerely like to take a closer look at prohibition past and present (and hopefully do some research of your own) we can explore it together.

 

[Baron Max]

.....more hype.....

Hype, what percentage of "We, the people..." should be able to dictate laws and government policy to all the rest of the people?

Do you think the same with the druggies of the nation, Hype? Should those druggies and addicts and drug zombies, ...that small percentage of "We, the people..." dictate the drug laws for the entire nation?

Please answer the question, Hype!

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

Baron Max: "Hype, what percentage...should be able to dictate laws and government policy to all the rest of the people?"

A clear majority. To legalize marijuana, I expect it will take at least a 70% national majority in favor, which is possible within a few years.

"Do you think the same with the druggies of the nation, Hype?"

About what issue- repeal of marijuana prohibition? Yes, I imagine I agree with them about that. But I doubt I "think the same" assuming for the sake of this conversation that there is a general "druggy" mindset as you seem to suggest.

But if we're going to use such a term as "druggie" here, we should first agree on the meaning of the word. I don't consider most marijauna users I've known as "druggies". To me, that term has a connotation of social/intellectual/professional dysfunction, due to drug addiction and withdrawal issues. I doubt that moderate and responsible marijuana use is that harmful, or comparable with (for example) the extreme dangers of heroin injection. It's drugs like methamphetamine, crack, and heroin that I associate with drug problems and "druggies".

"Should those druggies and addicts and drug zombies, ...that small percentage of "We, the people..." dictate the drug laws for the entire nation?"

No, I've never thought that a minority should legislate- nor have I made any such outlandish suggestion.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: "Hype, what percentage...should be able to dictate laws and government policy to all the rest of the people?"

A clear majority. To legalize marijuana, I expect it will take at least a 70% national majority in favor, which is possible within a few years.

Reading your crystal ball again, Hype? California has had votes on legalizing MJ and the druggies lost the vote. And Californians are the ones that "seem" to want drugs legalized the most ...and yet they lost the vote. Twice, I think?

No, I've never thought that a minority should legislate- nor have I made any such outlandish suggestion.

Oh, but you have ...even if couched in cloudy wordisms. You've made the claim that Americans want do away with drug laws in the same way as they wanted to repeal prohibition. And yet, with prohibition, the people did NOT vote to repeal the law ...the politicians repealed it without the consent of the people. And you've made mention of that same thing happening with legalizing drugs. If it was put to a vote right now, the laws against drugs would stay in place as is ...regardless of what your crystal ball says.

Baron Max

 

[Challenger78]

I am surprised people dont want ALL drug legalized. All prescription drugs like prozak, nitro glycerin pills etc. Make them all legal for everyone and children are people to so they have to be able to purchase anything they want. Make dynamite legal for everyone, make everything legal.

ANARCHY FTW ! .

I knew there was an anarchist in everyone. somewhere.

 

[hypewaders]

Somewhere not involving much cerebral cortex. Even in other species with appreciable brain, you have to get down to the most primitive impulses to find anarchy.

 

[hypewaders]

Baron Max: "You've made the claim that Americans want do away with drug laws in the same way as they wanted to repeal prohibition."

Correct: Both involve closely similar societal and democratic processes.

"And yet, with prohibition, the people did NOT vote to repeal the law ...the politicians repealed it without the consent of the people."

Wrong, Baron: US citizenry did vote to repeal prohibition, and did express overwhelmingly (over 70% of voters) their support for repeal. So strong was expressed public support for repeal, that it became a major platform issue for many winning candidates, including FDR.

At the state level, there were democratic holdouts to repeal (Mississippi being the last state to vote down Prohibition in 1966). As with the advancement of other civil rights, the Old South did lag behind the rest of the country in attitudes and laws. But every step of the way, repeal came about through activism and the democratic process (not by authoritarian edict as you are prone to suggesting). Alcohol prohibition did begin with a lack of expressed consent, but it was brought to an end through wide participation in informed democracy.

"And you've made mention of that same thing happening with legalizing drugs."

Correct, Baron: New York State recently repealed our draconian "Rockefeller Laws" through the representative-democratic process. There have been comparable changes in many States in recent years. Laws are most often repealed when a coherent public majority compels elected officials to see to it that the public consensus is expressed in the law. The most powerful instrument of change within our system of government is the power of organized voting.

"If it was put to a vote right now, the laws against drugs would stay in place as is"

US drug laws are not static; are not staying in place. Marijuana criminalization and prohibition are regularly put to the democratic test in most every state, and a tipping-point approaches. Majority opinion and laws have been changing in close parallel with 1930s repeal. A national referendum right now would be nearly a draw, but the trend is toward repeal.

If you will compare popular (even official) sentiment concerning marijuana today with what was the norm when fears of Reefer Madness were at peak frenzy, you will find that the difference is clear.

 

[John99]

If overly-ambitious social engineers criminalize a common behavior, that is in effect what happens. I'll be happy to explore the arc of alcohol prohibition with you both, and compare it with the present era of marijuana prohibition.

'

but first you were talking about:

First, the intended effect was not achieved: Popular demand for alcohol was not reduced in the long run. Higher-potency alcoholic products became more popular because of the logistical challenges of widespread smuggling. Many lives and tremendous fortunes were expended in the war that resulted between law enforcement and alcohol producers and distributors. Organized crime, both domestic and international, and both government and private corruption thrived on the vast and lucrative illicit business. Many citizens who would not otherwise have done so became associated and involved in criminal activity. The tremendous government expenditures of prohibition enforcement took away from important infrastructure investments that were part of our recovery from the Depression. The police, justice and penal systems were severely loaded down with deterring, prosecuting, and punishing the high proportion of citizens who were breaking prohibition.

now you just want to focus on the casual user who gets caught up in something. this is common for you when you get pushed into a corner just change the details.

if you get busted smoking weed or possession of a small amount, which casual users dont walk around with an ounce of weed in there pockets, the fine is like a traffic violation.

i really dont see why this is so important to you if the penalties are so low and how many people even get busted smoking weed? must be an incredibly low number.

 

[John99]

besides the people who run NORML or similar groups really have nothing better to do. if you take that away they have nothing.

 

[hypewaders]

John99: "now you just want to focus on the casual user who gets caught up in something."

I'll attentively consider anything you want to sincerely discuss on this topic.

"if you get busted smoking weed or possession of a small amount, which casual users dont walk around with an ounce of weed in there pockets, the fine is like a traffic violation."

That depends on where you live. In some parts of the USA and for many professions regardless of locale, a conviction for pot possession can seriously damage your life and reputation.

"i really dont see why this is so important to you if the penalties are so low and how many people even get busted smoking weed? must be an incredibly low number."

Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' in 2007, 47.4 percent of the 1,841,182 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 872,720. Of those, 775,137 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone.

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 738 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (611), St Kitts & Nevis (547), U.S. Virgin Is. (521), Turkmenistan (c.489), Belize (487), Cuba (c.487), Palau (478), British Virgin Is. (464), Bermuda (463), Bahamas (462), Cayman Is. (453), American Samoa (446), Belarus (426) and Dominica (419).
"However, more than three fifths of countries (61%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The rate in England and Wales - 148 per 100,000 of the national population - is above the mid-point in the World List.)"

 

[Randwolf]

i really dont see why this is so important to you if the penalties are so low and how many people even get busted smoking weed? must be an incredibly low number.

Well, if by incredibly low you mean:

Marijuana Arrests

Marijuana Arrests For Year 2007: 872,721 Tops Record High -Five Percent Increase Over 2006-

September 15, 2008 - Washington, DC

US Marijuana Arrests 1965-2006
Get Graphics Code

Washington, DC: Police arrested a record 872,721 persons for marijuana violations in 2007, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. This is the largest total number of annual arrests for cannabis ever recorded by the FBI.

...

Marijuana Arrests


Do you ever think before you post, or (insert deity) forbid do any research?


Edit: You beat me to it Hype :;

 

[hypewaders]

The more sources the better.

John99: "besides the people who run NORML or similar groups really have nothing better to do. if you take that away they have nothing."

Sources, please?

 

[John99]

That depends on where you live. In some parts of the USA and for many professions regardless of locale, a conviction for pot possession can seriously damage your life and reputation.

but you are still not stating what quantity. i personally know people who have been busted and the fine is very low. no jail time involved, they write you a ticket and you are on your way. is that so bad?

we all know that mj has no medicinal value. and your putting the smoke from a plant into your lungs. there is no way that can be beneficial to your lungs and maybe some other parts.

Randwolfe has some kind of axe to grind, which is evident by his use of personal insults. maybe i will read his links, if it is even worth the trouble to click on them, but he could just state his position, as i do. no links necessary.

 

[John99]

The more sources the better.

John99: "besides the people who run NORML or similar groups really have nothing better to do. if you take that away they have nothing."

Sources, please?

are you serious?

 

[hypewaders]

"but you are still not stating what quantity. i personally know people who have been busted and the fine is very low. no jail time involved, they write you a ticket and you are on your way. is that so bad?"

I'll repeat: It depends on where you live. In some parts of the USA and for many professions regardless of locale, a conviction for pot possession can seriously damage your life; your reputation; your livelihood.

"we all know that mj has no medicinal value."

That's ridiculous.

"your putting the smoke from a plant into your lungs. there is no way that can be beneficial to your lungs and maybe some other parts."

Ya like brownies? Baked 'em myself.

John99: "besides the people who run NORML or similar groups really have nothing better to do. if you take that away they have nothing."

Sources, please?

"are you serious?"

Yes. Let's see sources backing up your claim of marijuana's medicinal uselessness as well.

 

[Randwolf]

we all know that mj has no medicinal value. and your putting the smoke from a plant into your lungs. there is no way that can be beneficial to your lungs and maybe some other parts.

Medical Marijuana

Summary of Results of State-sponsored Medical Marijuana Studies
There have been a series of six studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This is a quick summary of each of those studies. by Kevin B. Zeese, Esq., attorney in federal marijuana rescheduling cases. This is a small part of a larger overview.

News about the only clinical study of medical marijuana now under way
UCSF researcher Donald Abrams waited 5 years to study AIDS and marijuana

Peer-reviewed results of New York State-sponsored cancer/marijuana studies
"Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy" by Vincent Vinciguerra, MD; Terry Moore, MSW; Eileen Brennan, RN

Report on New Mexico cancer/marijuana study
"Oral VS. Inhaled Cannabinoids for Nausea/Vomiting from Cancer Chemotherapy" Report of New Mexico State Dept. of Health

Early scientific comparison of oral THC and smoked marijuana for nausea
"Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High-Dose Methotrexate" December 1979; Annals of Internal Medicine

Fact sheet: 21 states have authorized medical marijuana research
Six states cleared all the hurdles and implemented programs

Medical Marijuana

Randwolfe has some kind of axe to grind, which is evident by his use of personal insults.

John, IMO the only way a person could interpret the question "Do you ever think before you post, or (insert deity) forbid do any research?" as an insult is if, in fact, they do not think or do research. If the shoe fits...

maybe i will read his links, if it is even worth the trouble to click on them, but he could just state his position, as i do.

My position in this case is that marijuana has medical value. Clear?

no links necessary.

No reason to provide evidence or read the evidence others supply, ignorance is bliss. This way you can maintain your opinion regardless of the facts in the case.

 

[John99]

so smoke all the weed you want. people who smoke dont get cancer. oh, weed cures it...according to one person anyway. They also live to be 150 and they do not age...hmmm....no thats not true. boy am i the stoopit one?:bugeye:

Summary of Results of State-sponsored Medical Marijuana Studies
There have been a series of six studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This is a quick summary of each of those studies. by Kevin B. Zeese, Esq., attorney in federal marijuana rescheduling cases. This is a small part of a larger overview.

News about the only clinical study of medical marijuana now under way
UCSF researcher Donald Abrams waited 5 years to study AIDS and marijuana

Peer-reviewed results of New York State-sponsored cancer/marijuana studies
"Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy" by Vincent Vinciguerra, MD; Terry Moore, MSW; Eileen Brennan, RN

Report on New Mexico cancer/marijuana study
"Oral VS. Inhaled Cannabinoids for Nausea/Vomiting from Cancer Chemotherapy" Report of New Mexico State Dept. of Health

Early scientific comparison of oral THC and smoked marijuana for nausea
"Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High-Dose Methotrexate" December 1979; Annals of Internal Medicine

Fact sheet: 21 states have authorized medical marijuana research
Six states cleared all the hurdles and implemented programs

why even bother posting that? some 'studies', is that supposed to mean anything significant or are you convincing yourself of something?

personally i dont even care and it is relatively minor drug compared to others but i am not a story teller or just like to see my own fancy posts.

 

[hypewaders]

John99: "personally i dont even care and it is relatively minor drug compared to others..."

Thanks for playing- you've done marvelous discredit to your argument.